We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ISER says impact of interest rate rises limited
Comments
-
do you think these mortgages might have a repayment vehicle?
Certainly something the FSA considers to rank as a concern. So a reasonable %, one reads into that don't. Interest only of course meant borrowers could stretch to fund the high market prices. Repayment of the mortgage being a secondary issue as it was years away.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Ok....
Well have the CML then....
But many peoples mortgage rates are not at 300 years lows, I am sure that many are not even at 10 year lows.One in four UK homeowners said they didn’t know that interest rates are currently at a 300-year low, according to research by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML).'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Graham, 1 in 4 UK homeowners not knowing about interest rates doesn't mean ANYTHING AT ALL about their ability to pay or not pay their mortgage.
To be honest I don't know for certain that the rates are lower than any time in the last 300 years, and if anyone asked me that question I'd say I didn't know too. People don't have their finger on 300 years of interest rate history. And even had the question been asked about 50 years a fair few people wouldn't be certain.
It's a ridiculous extrapolation from that statistic that people are not prepared for base rate rises in the sense of not being able to afford them. And the very fact someone is prepared to make a headline out of that non-statistic shows that there isn't anything remotely more convincing about to support the assertion that rising rates will cause carnage.
Why do the CML want people to worry about rates? Because they want people off unprofitable trackers and onto long term fixed rates. Bears are quick to notice VIs on anything they don't like, but not so vigilant on the other side of the equation.
LOL.
I could post up literally any article, from anyone, that shows different to the original post, and you'll find issue with it
Might go find another
0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Why?
A lot of posters here have been pointing this out for a very long time.
The vast majority of people could pay the mortgage with base rates at nearly 6% in 2007, and they could pay it today if they had to.
This research only confirms that.
Thing is McTavish, people will have less disposable income today than they had back in 2007.
High inflation, below inflation pay rises, higher taxes etc.
To compare peoples affordability to pay a mortgage at 6% back in 2007 with a 6% mortgage now is not a realistic scenario but then you would just overlook that to push your own agenda.0 -
shortchanged wrote: »Thing is McTavish, people will have less disposable income today than they had back in 2007.
High inflation, below inflation pay rises, higher taxes etc.
To compare peoples affordability to pay a mortgage at 6% back in 2007 with a 6% mortgage now is not a realistic scenario but then you would just overlook that to push your own agenda.
It also overlooks all the fixes in 2007, and all those fixes which have now ended....also overlooks all those who won't be able to now move off SVR due to negative equity and market conditions.
It's a very very simplistic viewpoint, which is why you don't see anyone in the media using it. In reality, the whole landscape has changed.0 -
so you don't know then - thanks for confirming.Thrugelmir wrote: »Certainly something the FSA considers to rank as a concern. So a reasonable %, one reads into that don't. Interest only of course meant borrowers could stretch to fund the high market prices. Repayment of the mortgage being a secondary issue as it was years away.0 -
Graham, words fail me. You've dredged up a meaningless statistic about interest rates. 1 in 4 people don't know they're the lowest in 300 years. And from that you infer that people will have difficulty paying if they rise on the basis they are "unprepared".
It's a TOTAL non-sequitur.
End of.0 -
-
I love the idea that the media would avoid a conclusion because its too simplistic...0
-
Graham, words fail me. You've dredged up a meaningless statistic about interest rates. 1 in 4 people don't know they're the lowest in 300 years. And from that you infer that people will have difficulty paying if they rise on the basis they are "unprepared".
It's a TOTAL non-sequitur.
End of.
Oh I see, you have missed the point.
The CML quote I pointed to USES the shelter data. It's good enough for the CML. That was my point. Whereas it's total tripe if you read the comments on here.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards